International Protection on Women's Rights, 36th Annual IIHR Study Session

(July 4-29, 2005)
By Atty. Myrish C. Antonio

Atty. Myrish C. Antonio

A European Academic Experience- The FNS Way

“If then, we find that either the male sex or the female is specially qualified for any particular form of occupation, then that occupation ought to be assigned to one sex or the other. But if the only difference appears to be that the male begets and the female brings forth, we shall conclude that no difference between man and women has yet been produced that is relevant to our purpose. We shall continue to think it proper for our Guardians and their wives to share in the same pursuits.”

-Plato, The Republic

Being among the chosen participants of the 36th Study Session of the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France was indeed both an honor and privilege. The pleasure was twice over because I was to attend the Session as a Friedrich Naumann Stiftung Scholar. On the whole, the session opened an avenue of greater understanding of liberal politics and the work of the Foundation as well as broadened whatever knowledge I have as yet imbibed on international human rights and the protection of the rights of women.

Strasbourg and Robert Schuman University

I should say though that Strasbourg is one of the most beautiful and exotic cities I have since visited. Its calmness and sheer aura of intellectuality made me feel so much at home. You see, Dumaguete City, my city which has been often dubbed as the University City of the South, resembles such tranquility and cleanliness. In the same manner, Silliman University, which happens to be both my Alma Mater and home appears very much akin to Robert Schuman University by the display of numerous large trees and greenery as well as vast expanse of space for study and playful banter among the studentry. It is therefore not difficult to conclude that Strasbourg and the University is perhaps the best venue of the Study Session.

There are also several other reasons why I love Strasbourg. I am quite impressed at its encouragement of the use of bicycles over cars (bicycles seem to be the most basic means of transport) and at the proximity of almost anything by walking. These I find as concrete manifestations of sustainable development in this part of the world. Of course we walked a lot to save on cost of the tram (it costs more than 1 euro per trip), but I would like to think that did me so much good as it was an opportunity to de-stress myself from an entire days’ academic intercourse and to “smell the roses”. There were many wonderful chances of soul-searching and introspection along its clean streets, under the pine trees in the park or simply up and down the hotel stairs.

The University was very accessible and its facilities, adequate for higher learning. There was a library where we can conduct research for free, a conference room where we could freely choose where to sit and a staff who was consistently attending to our needs.

Hotel Esplanade and the “Family of FNS Scholars”

I take so much pleasure in mentioning Hotel Esplanade, which was chosen in particular by FNS through Dr. Gabrielle Thons. Such edifice provided home away from home, in the real sense of the word. I think it was perfect: considering that it was only a 5-minute walk to the University, 10 minutes away from the Center and was in the middle of restaurants and grocery stores.

Our sense of gregariousness was indeed magnified in the hotel, which accommodated all our needs, helped us with our concerns and even allowed us to use its kitchen when we felt like we wanted to prepare our meals as a group in a different way. Genine, the owner, was particularly an exquisite host.

It is a pity how we might not be able to gather as a group again. There was some special bond that linked all of us scholars despite our cultural and political differences: Asli, Petra, Asamoah, Sombat, Myrfi and I- lawyers all from different countries of the world always made it a point to respect each other’s legal opinions and systems, Jelena our journalist and trafficking expert provided necessary expert knowledge on certain women’s issues plus her excellent cooking, Ghada and Vaclav gave points of view from the NGO and government side on human rights initiatives of Israel and the Czech Republic and Dovile, was our political expert. Somehow we were all bent on bringing forth our humanity into the endeavour. I was more than glad I had another Filipina with me because then I had the liberty to speak the language and our dialect at times when we were alone.

The 36th Study Session

I came to the Study Session armed with whatever knowledge I had acquired in national conferences on international human rights, women’s rights, international humanitarian law and refugee law. Knowing that the Session will tackle the sensitive and important topic of Protection of the Rights of Women, I expected a deeper and more extensive knowledge of the subject matter which would be handy in my initiatives in the Philippines as a public official, practicing lawyer and law lecturer.

While the Session indeed brought additional knowledge, I was not at all content with the extent of focus given to the discussion of women’s rights. In fact, among the Fundamental Courses, there was no particular topic devoted to it. I simply observed a slight integration of the issues in the courses on the European, African and Inter-American systems and a mention in the discussion on international humanitarian law. Only four among the more than 15 thematic courses tacked the “supposed” main theme of the study. There were even lectures which missed out important international initiatives on women’s rights, among them the Cairo Convention on Reproductive Health and the Beijing +10 Convention last March 2005. Actually, there was no discussion on reproductive health or marital rape or right to a profession. Most of the issues raised were on abortion, rape per se, political rights. I hope that in the years to come, the Institute will pay particular attention to a consistency of their lectures with the general topic for the session.

Myrfi and I also underwent the CIEDHU (Center for International Teaching of Human Rights) which only admitted around 15 applicants this year. The course was a welcome diversion from the traditional lectures of the other courses of the study. Here we had the chance to interact with both Mr. Jim Murdoch, the professor and our fellow learners. An individual and group presentation added more spice to the encounter. As a lecturer myself, the CIEDHU was an opportunity to widen my horizons in the different techniques of effective classroom instruction. Somehow we were also made to realize that the law student must be brought out of simply the academic concerns, but must be “humanized” to become a catalyst from the implementation of the protection of human rights.

Indeed, the entire scholastic experience in France (however exhausting it seemed to be as it has been a long time since I have endured 10 hours in the classroom), was worth it all. Somehow my brain seemed like it had undergone some sort of “change oil”.

The Friedrich Naumann Stiftung

The seminars organized by the FNS spurred such an awakening in me about basic liberal thoughts and values as well as discussions on the interdependence of politics and human rights. In fact, these seminars appeared to be better organized than those of the Session. I should say that most foundations and societies engaged in the development of thought and formation of policies should engage in the same avenues as those adopted by FNS in its seminars, participative, provocative, intellectually-stimulating.

Perhaps the FNS can also provide much-needed evaluative inputs into the Institute to pave the way for a better conduct of the Sesssions of the years to come. Indeed, as reputed as the Session appears to be, it should always endeavour to improve its craft consistent with the global efforts for the promotion of the respect of human rights.

Special thanks to Dr. Ronald Meinardus and his staff members especially Alexandra and Minnie who have been most helpful in this endeavour and to Dr. Gorg Mehnert, Dr. Stefan Melnik, Mr.Pabst and the amiable Dr. Gabrielle Thons who were most gracious hosts and surrogate parents.

One of my greatest regrets is not having learned basic French before invading Strasbourg enough to be able to achieve some form of “understandable” linguistic concerns as I leave France. I seemed to parade myself in simply the English language and a few concoctions of “bonjiuer”, “merci”, “merci buko” and my room number “transet.” The Strasbourg experience is one I shall find hard to forget.